Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

Ah right. I thought you might have been implying something else.

"Caroline Leftwick remembered the date and time after nearly 5 months."

I`m sure she still remembers it today after 26 years.

"It took James Camier 2 years to remember the date and time"

Not true. You are phrasing this to imply these witnesses had an epiphany of recovered lost memories which just is not the case at all.

"Bailey called him while he was still asleep"

A man who was not a shift worker who would have had to be still sleeping after 1-40 pm.

..

Well Bailey likes to highlight Cassidy`s memory difficulties and make him a liar but the reality was that Cassidy had a busy day on his phone that day and couldn`t realistically be expected to recall what exactly he said to whom and at what exact time. It is a very different scenario to what the people Bailey called had to remember which was a singular event. He may well have told Bailey that the dead woman was French in that first call, but there is no getting away from the fact that the first contact was 1-40 pm. Maybe you`re referring to something else. I don`t what you mean about Twomey.

In the 1990's people living in the country had fires when having a clearout and to dispose of rubbish. My father would have lit a weekly fires outside to dispose of our rubbish as we did not have a bin collection service. Although a fire is an odd thing to see or do now it wasnt at all in the 1990's. People disposing of old furniture, clothing, rubbish etc by having a fire wasnt unusual at all. Thats why again this cant be used as evidence. Just because himself and Jules had a fire means nothing.

Im sure other people living in that locality lit fires to dispose of stuff at that time - Should they be suspects to?

My point is lighting a fire to burn your rubbish wasnt unusual at all for the time. Everyone living in the country lit fires! This seems to be hard for some people to understand and they see this as suspicious when really it was an ordinary thing to see fires lit in peoples gardens and fields.

Now he very well could have been burning his bloody clothes after the murder or he could be burning old clothes himself and Jules were finished with. There is no way of proving what he was burning. The act of lighting a fire is not evidence that he is guilty though.

You don’t have a point.

He said he had a fire to burn his clothes that were soiled by blood from a turkey and then denied he had a fire.

He was a miserable git that was a hoarder, if it was turkey blood on his clothes he would more likely have boiled the clothes and drank the water afterwards thinking it was gourmet cuisine.

Anyone killing a turkey knows if they slitting it’s throat it could potentially get a bit messy but it usually doesn’t. Anyone with a brain half the size of the turkeys can avoid any blood stains on the clothes they choose to wear beforehand.

Yvonne Ungerer.

Girard suddenly remembered this piece of information in 1999 - 3 years after the murder. Long after Bailey became a suspect. Why did Girard suddenly remember this vital piece of information in 1999? Most rational people would have to assume he is a spoofer. If true he would have said this much earlier in the investigation.

"I`m not spinning any narratives. I`m just asking questions"

Most of your time is spent making factually incorrect statements. You continually say there is no evidence that Sophie and Bailey knew each other. Evidence that they did know each other has been produced at three separate court cases, none of which resulted in a favourable outcome for Ian Bailey. You continually deny factual reality. You are a total spinner.

"Moonunit"

You know all about Moonunit and you know nothing about Scoobie. Yeah right. Moonunit was a mine of information. Scoobie was a mine of misinformation and another total spinner. I was posting here at the same time as Moonunit. I am not he/she.

"you have no answer to the big important questions"

I have been posting on this thread for well over a year. I don`t avoid any of the issues. I didn`t get into it with one poster about his travails with the Gardaí because I couldn`t be arsed, I knew he was on a hiding to nothing and I didn`t need his law degree to see that either.

"What relationship existed between Bailey and Sophie?"

Based on both French and Irish evidence it was artistic and because she came over alone it may also have been physical. To think there was none requires a level of conspiracy that needs the participation of local Gardaí and a collection of several witnesses, French and Irish, some of whom don`t even know each other. The same principle applies to events on the day after the murder and the reality that he was able to tell a number of people about it all before he was actually contacted by the individual who first informed him about it. That requires a separate conspiracy involving several completely different witnesses.

"Why would Bailey walk so far"

It is you who keeps saying he would have walked. I am open minded about whether he walked or drove and I have no real issue with either. Both are eminently possible.

"in the middle of the night to attack a woman for no reason?"

You have invented an improbable narrative that he went over there to kill so that you can criticize that narrative. It is unlikely he went over there to kill anybody just as he didn`t walk through Jules`s front door because he had a desire to assault her.

"without leaving the slightest trace of evidence, either at the scene..."

Sophie was unable to put up a fight. Forensics indicate that she didn`t scratch her assailant, she didn`t pull his hair, no sexual assault so no semen and if it was Bailey who did this, then based on the descriptions of his scratches, he didn`t leave his blood at the scene either. Therefore, he would have been confident in giving a DNA sample later on, the alternative being a refusal that would indicate guilt. Bailey wrote an article proposing that Sophie fled from an assailant who chased her and hit her on the back of the head with a weapon which would have presumably incapacitated her. He also wrote that there had been no sexual assault and this was before that information was in the public domain. How did he know that?

"or on his person/clothing"

Clothing and footwear burned in a bonfire a couple of days after the murder by a man who was a hoarder and who never got rid of anything.

"And what was his motive?"

Asking what Bailey`s motive to kill Sophie would have been, is asking the wrong question. What was the motive for his assaults on Jules? Minimal provocation. Probably a run of the mill domestic that became a near death experience for Jules. Ordinarily the important question would be what was his motive for going over there? But we actually don`t need an answer to that either because we know from conversations that he and Jules had on Hunt`s Hill and back at the cottage that for whatever reason, he wanted to go over there, we know he got out of bed and was unaccounted for until the following morning. Have you read Jules`s statement that she signed in the presence of her legal representative yet?

"I realize these are uncomfortable questions for you"

You realized wrong.

"that you would rather discuss the phase of the moon on the night"

No thanks. Don`t attribute things to me that I haven`t said. The moon only came up in our discussions because you tried to spin a false narrative that it was a dark night.

"these are the questions I want answers to before I can give serious consideration to this absurd proposition"

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and think the rest of us are here to provide answers to your questions. You cannot on the one hand conclude that the proposition is absurd and at the same time acknowledge that you require answers to a number of questions.